The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.

NOTE! This site uses cookies and similar technologies.

If you not change browser settings, you agree to it. Learn more

I understand

Cookies are a technology which we use to provide you with tailored information on our website. A cookie is a piece of code that is sent to your internet browser and is stored on your system.

Please see below for a list of cookies this website uses:

Cookie name: _utma, _utmb, _utmc, _utmz

Purpose: Google Analytics cookies. Google Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Cookie name: Sitecore

Purpose: Stores information, such as language and regional preferences, that our content management system (the system we use to update our website) relies on to function.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: ASP.net_session

Purpose: Allows the website to save your session state across different pages. For example, if you have completed a survey, the website will remember that you have done so and will not ask you to complete it again when you view another page on the website.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: website#sc_wede

Purpose: Indicates whether the user's browser supports inline editing of content. This indicates whether our content management system will work for our website administrators in their internet browsers.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: redirected

Purpose: Remembers when the site forwards you from one page to another, so you can return to the first page. For example, go back to the home page after viewing a special 'splash' page.

Function: This is a session cookie, which your browser will destroy when it shuts down. The website needs this cookie to function.

Cookie name: tccookiesprefs

Purpose: Remembers when you respond to the site cookie policy, so you do not see the cookie preferences notice on every page.

Function: If you choose to remember your preference with a temporary cookie, your browser will remove it when you shut it down, otherwise the cookie will be stored for about a year.

Cookie name: _ga

Purpose: Additional Google Analytics cookie. Google Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. Please see Google's privacy policy for further information.

Cookie name: SC_ANALYTICS_GLOBAL_COOKIE, SC_ANALYTICS_SESSION_COOKIE

Purpose: Sitecore Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. When you close your browser, it will delete the 'session' cookie; it will keep the 'global' cookie for about one year.

Twitter cookies

YouTube cookies

We embed videos from our official YouTube channel. YouTube uses cookies to help maintain the integrity of video statistics, prevent fraud and to improve their site experience. If you view a video, YouTube may set cookies on your computer once you click on the video player.

Cookies pop-up

When you close the cookies pop-up box by clicking "OK", a permanent cookie will be set on your machine. This will remember your preference so that the pop-up doesn't display across any pages whenever you visit the website.

Opting out/removing cookies

You can also control what cookies you accept through your internet browser. For details on how to do this, please visit aboutcookies.org. Please note that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our website.

Signaling a post-Brexit industrial strategy

Supporting Bombardier - Putting employment in Britain at the heart of economic policy.

Robert Oulds

25th September 2017

We are determined that Brexit, if when it eventually happens in earnest, delivers the change we need. One of these new approaches can be in defending British industry, along with its jobs and innovation from unfair actions. But why wait for Brexit? It can begin now!

Bombardier, a major employer in Britain, a new entrant in the plane market, is being threatened by a trade complaint brought by Boeing designed to keep it out of the US market.[i] Theresa May’s government must show that a post-Brexit Britain will use its new-found independence to stand up for UK jobs. A policy area where we would not have to live with pan-EU rules any more. British taxpayers give Boeing hundreds of millions of pounds in defence deals, while at the same time they’re trying to close British factories. That’s not the action of a trusted partner for this country.

What should the Government do?

The Canadian Government of Justin Trudeau has warned Boeing that if it does not stop bullying Bombardier his government will cancel its taxpayer-funded contracts with Boeing.[ii]

Theresa May should follow suit and review all taxpayer contracts with Boeing, until the company withdraws its threat to close British factories. This would be a real show of commitment to a UK-focused industrial strategy.

Some in a resurgent Labour Party at their conference in Brighton are attempting to undermine the spirit of the referendum by keeping the UK tied in as closely as possible to the EU for as long as possible. They seem to be pushing at an open door. The Government has accepted an EU transition with some of the obligations of membership, minus the influence, as proposed by our Prime Minister in her recent speech in Florence.

Taking such an approach to its extremes means not only accepting EU control over trade but also its undue influence over our industrial strategy and EU procurement rules and tendering.

Since the referendum progress has been made. The initial stages of Brexit have already been a boon to employment.[iii] British manufacturing has grown since the referendum.[iv] This has largely been driven by increasing export demand.[v] The rebalancing of the British economy should have little to fear from Brexit. The potential extra costs of tariffs placed on British exports to the EU is more than mitigated by the reduction in the value of the pound.[vi]

Despite this fear still pervade British politics, infecting some areas of business confidence.[vii] Steps were taken to alleviate the naysayers’ predictions of gloom if the UK was fully free to implement its own policies. Some supply side reforms were proposed. Yet, talk of a low tax UK alternative to the dilapidated EU (Franco-German model) has been muted of late. This backtracking away from boldness does little to restore confidence. The other approach now adopted by the Government is one making renewed concessions to the EU. This has problems of its own.

Any half-hearted Brexit, any postponement, any delay is a denial of the referendum result and just as importantly a rejection the opportunities that await UK plc after Brexit. If the rediscovery of Thatcherite classically liberal economic policies is no longer on the agenda then a new approach is needed.

We want to make sure Brexit is a success, but we are now further than before from being able to make the right choices for ourselves. Yet, the Government can show that despite some recent mixed messages, which fail to appreciate the opportunities that await us, there is still another way to signal that it will make Brexit a success.

The Government can restore confidence and outline a better tomorrow by showing that it will protect the employment gains that have recently been won and much more than that protect and enhance high-end manufacturing, creating well-paying jobs that add value to the economy. The government can signal that it will do what is necessary, taking back control must mean something.

To mitigate the fears and genuinely to secure the best outcomes for the British economy a self-governing country will have many decisions to make. Brexit has the potential to be a huge opportunity for many organisations, especially our excellent manufacturers. One of these threatened employers is Bombardier.

Defending a respected company – alongside Canada, a potential new global trading partner - will show that we have much to gain from Brexit. This must begin now and this is a real issue that needs to be addressed, not just for its totemic importance but also because jobs in this country depend upon it.

Bombardier is a well-known maker or trains, which has suffered before because of the UK’s over officious implementation of EU procurement rules awarding contracts to German rivals Siemens. [viii] There is now a new issue where the Government can step in to help its plane-making division in a dispute with American rivals Boeing. Bombardier is trying to break the duopoly of Boeing and Airbus in the production of smaller commercially sold planes. These pricing from there powerful rivals is having the effect of squeezing Bombardier.[ix][x] What is worse, is that Boeing is trying to push Bombardier out of the US market altogether. The Canadian Government of Justin Trudeau has warned Boeing that if it does not stop bullying Bombardier through the courts his government will cancel its contracts with Boeing.[xi] The British Government should follow suit and review all contracts with Boeing.

Of course, a real solution is only fully achievable when we ae outside of the EU but it can ward off Boeing’s aggressive action and make them think twice about the long term, implications of its legal action in the US courts. Through signalling such an approach the remoaners that fear change, even in the Labour Party will see, that Brexit can be a real opportunity.

British taxpayers give Boeing hundreds of millions of pounds in defence deals, while at the same time they’re trying to close British factories. That’s not the action of a trusted partner for this country. Theresa May, stand up and support workers in the UK.

Its not just about defending Bombardier and the production of its C Series aircraft. There are also over 200 UK suppliers directly provide materials, hardware, equipment, and services for this planes production. The Belfast facility plays a critical role in C Series production and advanced composite wing assemblies.

Boeing’s petition to the US International Trade Commission (ITC) is a direct attack on innovation, competition, and development, which would ultimately harm the industry, consumers, and workers. Boeing’s petition would hinder future investment and domestic job growth in the UK. Northern Ireland leaders have asked Vice President Pence to interject. They fear peace in the region could be in jeopardy over job loss.[xii]

If Boeing is successful, Bombardier’s C-Series aircraft could be pushed out of the American market. The Times wrote “Boeing says it believes that "global trade only works if everyone plays by the same rules of the road. The company [Boeing] should heed its own advice before condemning others.”[xiii]

Theresa May announced that she phoned President Trump to raise concerns over Northern Ireland jobs.[xiv] Yet that is not enough. Theresa May knows what can be done and can follow Canada robust example. Justin Trudeau and Theresa May held a meeting to discuss the Boeing-Bombardier trade dispute in Ottawa on Monday 18th September.[xv]

Boeing’s protectionist complaint is unjustified. If successful, it would lead to job losses in this country, harming UK manufacturing. Taxpayer contracts with Boeing should be suspended until Boeing commits to withdrawing its complaint against Bombardier. The Government must use every weapon in its armoury to protect British workers.

This should be the message of what a post-Brexit Britain will be like. We will then see business confidence return.

A Brexit-driven reconfiguration of the UK’s food and agricultural sector suggests that a period of significant transformation lies ahead; but if mapped successfully, can be a positive one.

George Macquisten

31st August 2017

Every civilization that has settled in Gibraltar has thrived, be it the Phoenicians, the Romans, the Ottomans, the Spanish and most recently, the British. Its strategic location and deep water harbour have been the reasons behind this, and enabled them to make it a vital trading hub.

Brexit represents a huge challenge to the future of Gibraltar as an economic centre, since it means losing membership of the biggest trading bloc in the world once the UK leaves in 2019. Gibraltar has experienced similar issues before in the various sieges mounted against it in the War of the Spanish Succession, and most recently during Franco’s blockade. There is certainly plenty to be cautious about, since the territory has become more dependent than ever on the land frontier remaining open to facilitate the movement of tourists, labour and imports.

However, the thriving financial services sector, which is closely aligned with that of the UK, means that the economic outlook is not as bleak as businesses and politicians initially feared, especially since the TiSA negotiations are proceeding well. The symbolic relationship Gibraltar shares with the neighbouring Spanish province of Andalucia means that they cannot function without the other.

Sense between the negotiating parties will prevail, especially since Madrid will not wish to sacrifice the economic well being of 10,000 Spaniards and forego the purchasing power of 30,000 comparatively wealthy Gibraltarians through causing difficulties at the border. If all sides can tone down the sometimes fiery rhetoric, there is every hope for creative solutions to keep the border with Spain open and flowing to the benefit of all.

Will the Netherlands be the next domino to fall?

Opinion poll shows Dutch opposition to the EU is strong and can win.

56% = Support Nexit (EFTA + FTA)

Only 44% = Support for EU

26th February 2017

A new Dutch poll commissioned by the Bruges Group, carried out by www.peil.nl, shows that more Dutch people prefer the alternatives to the European Union than they do EU membership. As the alternatives are already gathering more support than EU membership a concerted campaign in the Netherlands, which could force a referendum[1], will mean Holland voting to leave the EU.

The Dutch general election will take place on 15th March and the question of the EU is becoming increasingly important. The Netherlands’ terms of EU membership are already being questioned by an increasing amount of political parties; namely the Centre Democrats (Netherlands)‎, ChristianUnion, Party for Freedom‎, Party for the Animals, Libertarian party, Reformed Political Party, and Socialist Party (Netherlands). Which can make gains. The issues are immigration, who makes law, and size of the Dutch financial contribution.

Across the continent of Europe and beyond people want to take back control of their lives. A concerted campaign for Nexit, along the lines that we saw in the UK, can overtime, just like it did in Britain, move the Netherlands towards the exit. Britain will welcome our allies, the Dutch people, in a new post-EU Europe.

The question asked respondents which of 3 options they preferred, the results are below:

39% = EU

23% = EFTA (European Free Trade Association)

27% = FTA (Free Trade Agreement)

11% = Don't Know

Without Don't Knows

56% = Nexit (EFTA + FTA)

44% = EU

1,174 people were polled over 14-15/2/17

The results show also (without Don't Knows):

Men 56% Nexit (EFTA +FTA), 44% EU

Women 57% Nexit (EFTA + FTA), 43% EU

Also all age groups 25 and over support Nexit options

And all regions prefer Nexit, even in the large cities a majority prefer the alternatives to EU membership.

In past referendums in the Netherlands, people have voted for less EU:

61.6% said Nee in 2005 to the EU constitution and 64% voted against the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement in 2016.

[1]Referendums, known in Dutch as volksraadpleging (people's consultation), can with political pressure, as in the UK, be held.

A Brexit-driven reconfiguration of the UK’s food and agricultural sector suggests that a period of significant transformation lies ahead; but if mapped successfully, can be a positive one.

Richard Ferguson

21st June 2017

The possibility of a Brexit-driven reconfiguration of the UK’s food and agricultural sector suggests that a period of significant transformation and structural adjustment lies ahead. Set against an industry already in the midst of rapid technological displacement, value-chain disruption and regulatory change, a transformative event such as Brexit appears to add to existing uncertainty.

However, while the potential institutional, financial and operating frameworks that will arise from Brexit suggest a wide range of possible outcomes, the process, if mapped successfully, can be a positive one. The UK’s current position is not unique. In the 1980s, the government of New Zealand instigated a reform programme to transform the country’s food and agriculture sector, the results of which were immediate and painful as well as long-term and beneficial.

At the core of the transformation that shook New Zealand’s agriculture sector in the 1980s and 1990s was a pressing need to access new markets in the face of external economic shocks and structural adjustments, such as the UK’s decision to join the then European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973. While there are obvious direct parallels between the New Zealand case study and Brexit, both situations remain distinct and unique. The first section of this report “The past is another country” considers the New Zealand experience and argues that an agenda focused on long-term goals can deliver significant economic and social benefits, but may come with considerable short-term costs. The battle about to commence is set to be as brutal, complex and ideological as that which determined the direction of the British economy in the late-1970s and early 1980s.

The second part of this report “The here and now” considers the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), the defining policy feature of the UK’s agriculture landscape over the past few decades. The design of any new policy-making framework has to begin with some macro considerations, not least: how relevant is a subsidy-based system of payments in the modern era? Moreover, what is the relevance of food security in a country with a structural trade deficit in food? We must also consider to what extent environmental considerations should influence the policy-making agenda. What is the role of government in terms of regulation, environmental compliance, bio-security and food trust? Alternatively, can a free-market, liberalisation agenda deliver wider social, political and environmental objectives as well as economic goals? Can the UK use its fledgling – and flourishing – agtech knowhow to raise productivity, build exports and deliver value added to the British economy?

The third part of this report “The future is another country” peers into the future, and presents some innovative and strategic thoughts. As a study it is neither exhaustive nor academic, but it does cover many of the key and very real issues that come up time and again in our daily work with clients. It simply considers some of the strategic directions that the UK should consider if it wishes its food and agriculture sector to prosper. A global imperative is: how do we feed a world of 10bn people within a generation when its current needs are delivered by an army of unsophisticated and undercapitalised smallholders? We contend that the Department for the Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Department for International Development (DFID) need to shift their respective – and parallel – focuses on agriculture subsidies and development aid to collude with the Department for International Trade (DIT) and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) to bring much of the UK’s technological, commercial, developmental and diplomatic ambitions in food and agriculture under a joint strategy.

Opinion Poll: There is an alternative to EU Membership

EU referendum Opinion Poll

Robert Oulds

29th March 2016

58% said they would prefer Britain being a part of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) rather than the EU, 42%

A majority of voters would prefer the UK to be a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) as opposed to the EU, according to a new survey published today by the Bruges Group.

Removing don’t knows, of those expressing a preference in the survey, a clear 58% said that Britain would be better off as a member of the trade group EFTA, as opposed to 42% who thought that Britain should remain a member of the EU.

EFTA differs from the EU in that it would not have jurisdiction over the UK’s agriculture, fisheries, home affairs or justice policies. It takes Britain out of the Europe Union whilst still giving UK businesses full access to the EU’s Single Market. EFTA membership would also allow the UK to negotiate free trade agreements with countries outside of the EU. In addition, Britain would become again a sovereign nation with more power over its domestic affairs. This is the positive alternative to EU control.

Also, taking out the don't knows:

Scotland, EFTA 52%, EU 47%

Wales, EFTA 54%, EU 46%

London, EFTA 55%, EU 45%

18-34, EFTA, 50%, EU 50%

Robert Oulds, Director of the Bruges Group, said:

“There is a fully worked out exit plan that clearly sets out what Britain will be like once we vote to leave the EU. We have shown there is a viable alternative to EU membership and what is more this will win us the referendum.

“The option of re-joining EFTA is very popular with the British public.”

- ends -

- notes for editors -

The opinion poll was carried out by Opinium for the Bruges Group on 11th March 2016, with 2,001 interviewees. The question asked was:

“The European Economic Area (EEA) is the single market that allows for free movement of goods, services, people and capital between all participating European countries. There are two organisations which allow countries to access this EEA single market - the European Union (EU) and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA).

Members of the EFTA adopt some of the regulations that the EU passes in order to be able to access the EEA single market and contribute to the EU’s budget but are not bound by EU rules on agriculture, fisheries, home affairs or justice policies.

EFTA members are also able to negotiate trade agreements with outside countries whereas the EU does this for its member states. In return, EFTA members have much more limited influence over how EU rules are made.

If the UK left the European Union, it could become a member of the EFTA instead.

Supporters of this move say that the UK would have to adopt fewer European regulations and pay less into the EU budget than it does now while still being able to help shape the rules.

Opponents say that the UK would still have to abide by EU rules to be part of the EEA single market but would have no say in making those rules

With this in mind, which would you prefer the UK to be a member of?”

EEA & EU (European Economic Area and European Union) (513 respondents out of 2,001)

EEA & EFTA (European Economic Area and European Free Trade Association) (710 respondents out of 2,001)